Five years after my client’s car accident the case finally went to trial.  And after three days a verdict was reached that made me angry about the what she went through at the hands of the system.  I realized much of my anger was directed not so much at the person that hit her, not the insurance company that dragged this out, refusing to pay any more than a nuisance value on the case – I was also mad at the system.  In my profession, I expect the insurance company not to pay. I expect the defendant to deny he did anything wrong. I expect each of these parties to claim that all of the treatment my client received was for anything other than the car accident.  What I don’t expect is the Courthouse, that stands as the place to make all things right, to be so hamstrung by budget cuts as to all but close its doors to these disputes.

Three times the case had come up for trial.  On three separate occasions we were ready to try this case, with my client expecting to go and have a jury of her peers decide the outcome – witnesses were lined up, doctors were advised to cancel their patients and come to the courthouse first thing Monday morning.  Monday came.  No courtroom. Tuesday, no courtroom.  Wednesday, same thing. And then on Friday, with the court system completely backlogged, the call came from the court clerk with a new date a few months later to repeat the whole painstaking process again.  When we finally got the mythical courtroom, the whole trial was done in three days. A five year wait for three measly days.

How many times have we heard we are living in unprecedented times when it comes to the state of our State?  Furloughs and budget cuts are cutting into civil liberties, because California simply cannot afford justice.  And I was happy to see that AB 2284 recently made it to the Governor’s desk.  AB 2284 is the vehicle for implementing one-day jury trials.  If the bill passes, attorneys could voluntarily choose the expedited process.  A jury would be quickly impaneled (instead of the standard, prolonged questioning process that takes hours if not days) and the whole case would be tried in one day.  Before the trial ever started, both sides would agree to a confidential “high-low,” to safeguard that Plaintiffs would receive a minimum payment and Defendants would be assured a payment cap, no matter what the ultimate verdict.  The jury would not have no alternates, the courtroom would have no costly reporter, and the jury’s decision would be binding. The system would cut litigation costs and guarantee that the Courthouse could once again administer justice, not a calendar of dark days and door closures.

Not entirely as a side note, this bill co-sponsored by both the Consumer Attorneys of California (Plaintiff’s lawyers) and the California Defense Counsel.  Ultimately, no matter what side you intend to argue for once you walk through those doors, we all want the Courthouse to be the place where justice is done.  And justice should remain pure and impervious to budget cuts.